I have a question

[la_marquise]

Dear SFF Community,

Most of the time, I'm proud to be part of you. I'm proud to be part of a community that Matched It For Pratchett and regularly raises money for Talking Books for the Blind. I'm proud to be part of a community that is strongly, vocally, actively working to ensure our space is fully accessible, convenient and pleasant for people with disabilities. I'm proud to be part of a community that set up the Carl Brandon Society and Con Or Bust. I'm proud to be part of a community which, on seeing institutionalised racism, sexismn, trans*phobia, homophobia, hostility to people who reject gender normativity, turned around and, yes, argued, long and loud and continuously, but also set out to clean house and make ourselves better. Very few other groups linked by common interest have done that. Most of them seem to prefer to gaslight and bully those who raise such issues. I'm proud to belong to a community that sees its own shortcomings. Yes, we could do better. We can always do better.

There are some great things going on in our community right now. Nine Worlds is working to create and maintain a con environment that is welcoming to PoC, QUILTBAG people, fans with disabilities, new fans. Many cons now have and enforce Codes of Conduct aimed at fostering inclusivity and safety. Con committees are working to find ways to recruit new fans, younger fans. SFWA is working actively to end a culture of normative sexism and racism. Women writers are banding together to address equality in bookshop promotions. Writers of colour are speaking up and working to address the inequality they face. People from across the fan spectrum are supporting and signal-boosting them.

And we are all rooted in the societies that raised us, societies that are, mainly, institutionally racismt sexist, tran*- , xeno- and homo-phobic, hostile to people who face physical and mental challenges, wqhich blame the poor and underprivileged for their difficulties. We were most of us raised in cultures that fostered this, often unconsciously. We are surrounded by images and actions which reinforce an unequal status quo. It awes me that so many in our community fight this, in both their cultures and themselves. IT awed me that we stand up to those who are within the community who seem to revel in their prejudices and tell them, No More.

But, right now, I have a question for you. Why, when we fight these battles, do we so often resort to the same old patriarchal norms? Why do we reserve our greatest spleen for *women* and defend our right to do so? That, I put to you, needs addressing and it needs addressing now. I really don't want to comment on Loncon 3 and Jonathan Ross: enough has been said and said in all kinds of ways. My personal view on it, for those who will demand to know such things, is that I think the chairs made a mistake here. He is a fan, certainly, but he is also controversial and divisive for well-rehearsed reasons. At the same time, he's very popular, particularly with the younger demographic and would certainly have drawn in new, younger attendees. So I can also see that the chairs had reasons on their side too. I don't think the chairs are bad people. I know both of them, have done for years, and they have both worked long and hard for inclusivity in UK fandom. This time, trying for one kind of that, they made a mistake in another kind. We all make mistakes. They don't -- they shouldn't -- cast us into pits of hellfire for all eternity. If that were the case, then the Vox Days have won: they don't care about making mistakes, they just carry on. If we throw each other out of the lifeboat one by one, we end up with no-one.

That's one thing. But I want to go back to my question. Why is the worst reserved for women?
Here's what I saw: a woman, who is a survivor of bullying and class oppression, expressed her concerns over the material that might be used by Mr Ross and how it might affect her. A large number of people, male and female, lit into her for daring to express her fears in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
A young woman, who is related to Mr Ross, tried to reassure her and was distressed by all the things that were being said. Another woman, the mother of that young woman, stepped in to defend her daughter. She perhaps did not do so tactfully, but she was faced with an upset and unhappy child. And, a number of people lit into her for daring to express her feelings in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
Both the adult women are now silent on twitter. One has felt driven to delete her account. These women have in fact spoken to each other calmly and come to mutual understanding. But people on all sides -- pro-Ross and anti- him -- are continuing to abuse both these women. I'm seeing more of that than I am people questioning his form of comedy or the chairs' decision. I'm seeing women as a group involved in this being demonised in the press and on social media, for being strident mean girls, bullies, sell-outs etc etc etc.
Because Women must be Good.
Neither of these adult women committed a crime. It's not a crime to be distressed and triggered about potential harassment. It's not a crime to feel the need to defend your child verbally. But people are using the tone argument on both of them, because women Must Be Good. They are demanding complete recanting and surrender. They are demanding recognition for a perceived right to abuse women.
Because women must be Good, and a woman out of line is far worse than a controversial man or a questionable decision.
This is patriarchy at its best, using us to undermine each other. I've seen you, men who position as allies, poking fun at that first woman, implying her concerns are trivial, stupid, blamable. I've seen you, women who I love and admire and support, demanding a right to punish a woman for being married to a man you disapprove of. I've seen male allies and vocal feminists falling straight into the patriarchy trap and blaming the women.
Shape up. Look at who is gaining here. Not us. Oh no. The winner> The system that says women must bear responsibility for policing and controlling male behaviour, that women must adapt their bodies and thoughts and actions to suit male expectations and desires, that women must attain to and keep far higher standards than men at all times, that Women Must Be Perfect.
Mr Ross will not be hosting the Hugos. The concerns the community had over inclusivity and safety were heard. Inclusivity and safety won out.
Yet somehow the long term winner seems to be patriarchal thinking.
And I want to know why.

Comments

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I can leave an unbiased comment, as I've grown up in societies (UK and US) that have had ingrained patriarchy and gender roles, and so must be aware that what I think is "normal" or "right" is very much tinted by this.

So ...
(after much retyping, and rethinking, and deleting...)

I agree. Using the tone argument, or wanting people to roll over, surrender, and apologise for how they feel, is wrong. (there, very simple).

And abusing people, online, in person, behind their backs ... is wrong.

(Terrible analogy follows)
If you abuse a big guard dog, and it bites you ... you aren't very bright.
If you a abuse a puppy, who doesn't have the power to fight back, you can damage it for life.

Men have had the power, the strength, and the societal support for so long, that it feels normal.
Women who are now trying to establish an equal position are being attacked for it. They haven't had the power, the strength, or the societal support, and still don't.

Seeing that men have that power, strength etc. some people see an "easier" target to go after their wives, children etc. as a way of attacking.

I think a problem straight away is "why are we attacking?" You don't like something, say so. If you like something, say so.
If the convention is organising, say, an exhibit celebrating the works of John Normal (the "Gor" books) and you object to them, then raise awareness, start petitions, boycott the convention, ask your friends to boycott the convention ... *don't* attack someone, don't attack someone's family, friends, employers etc.

Of course some people have gone through experiences that have taught them that protest rarely works, and so skip most of that and go straight on the attack (you can see this in many families and relationships, the "knowledge" that reasoning and asking nicely doesn't work, so you get to shouting and throwing things really quickly).

Dehumanising a person is the first step. "She's only a hysterical woman", "his point isn't valid, he's fat", "you can't understand, you're a man", "he's a public personality, that means he deserves abuse and has to take it, because he's not human anymore". Or the worst (and prevalent here) ... "it's ok, it's not a real person, it's a twitter account, or facebook ... I'm not talking to a real person with feelings, so I can be as rude and threatening as I want".

Compassion, understanding, empathy have all gone out the window, and we (if we are a community, then it is *us*) have allowed horrible things to happen here. We need to find a healing way forward (and no, I'm not suggesting reinviting someone devisive).

I do think that if an event said they were going to have, say, the EDL leader, as a guest, then you could choose whether to attend or not. But if an event says it's going to be open, welcoming, and respectful, takes your membership money, and then invites someone like that EDL person, you have bought into the event, you have invested your holiday time, your travel budget, your hotel budget etc. as well as your membership money, and so if the convention then deviates strongly from what you thought you'd invested in, you have a say in it.
There's an old thought that if you don't like how a team is running a convention, run your own. That doesn't work particularly well for political parties, it works even less well for Worldcon. It's not a practical or sensible answer.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

It's really hard to break out of patterns of thinking that are so ingrained in us by everyday society. Really, really hard.
And yes, to your point re invitees. Individual members absolutely have the right to have a say.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I do think that if an event said they were going to have, say, the EDL leader, as a guest, then you could choose whether to attend or not. But if an event says it's going to be open, welcoming, and respectful, takes your membership money, and then invites someone like that EDL person, you have bought into the event, you have invested your holiday time, your travel budget, your hotel budget etc. as well as your membership money, and so if the convention then deviates strongly from what you thought you'd invested in, you have a say in it.

That's exactly my objection to the whole Ross/Hugos business. I had had enormous doubts about Loncon because previous Worldcons had been such a disaster from my perspective (concerns about sexual harassment) and because until - as a matter of fact - World Fantasy Con got stick for its feeble harassment policy, Worldcon had also been looking like it was going the same way. So I'd been talked into it on the strength of its "getting" that issue (by promoting its current policy, and by the fact someone I know well had been invited to draft it), and having Ross host the Hugos was the reverse of its "getting" what people were worried about.

I don't care if other people would have found him the big draw and not worried about that - for me, one of the key points about Loncon was whether it did or did not take harassment seriously, and for me getting Ross to host a keynote event at Loncon was as negative on that point as it might have been for a climate change activist to discover Clarkson was handing out the Green Energy Awards at some big do.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

This is why the decision to invite him was one I personally think was a mistake. I wouldn't have been as concerned if he had been appearing on a panel, say: the audience tends to be self-selecting for those. But the Hugos have a much wider catchment.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Ironically, his choice as host would have probably got me along to the Hugos having previously decided that they're usually too dull and badly presented to be worth bothering with :p

This year I'll be going for a curry with friends I suspect unless something 'amazing' happens.